"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think"

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
So you agree with me that the reason for that 1 kilogram relative lump came from commerce and not science.
As it stands now one kilogram is the exact same measure as 1/6x10^24 Earths, so both lumps are usable.

You are insane. Using a liter of water I could construct a single beam scale and find the weight of a bicycle, for example, to fairly high accuracy in about an hour. Using your alternative 'lump', you would spend that hour with your thumb in your butt saying the same old stupid stuff.

Being the highly scientific type that I am, however, I'd just use the bathroom scale.

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
Mathematically this is of course the case that no work appears to be done for a circular orbiter because its energy state does not change.
Lets look at bit closer and investigate the matter further with elliptical orbiters. Do you think there is energy transfer occurring (i.e. work being done) between an elliptical orbiter and the mass being orbited?

Technically, there is a conversion between potential and kinetic energy. There is no transfer of energy between the two objects.

If you do, where does the energy for this work come from and how does the work occur in your view?

Answer above.

You are just confused. The energy state simply represents the state of all atoms of any mass.

How, exactly, does it do that? And why does such a representation have the units m^3/s^2?

For an orbit around Earth the new gravity model dictates that the energy states of all atoms of the masses need to be around ~6.6E+04 m³/s².

What, eaxctly, does this mean?

So pushing something to orbit the Earth means that from a relative ZERO energy state all the atoms of the pushed mass need to absorb energy to reach that state.

There you go confusing energy (with dimensions kg.m/s^2) with your energy state (m^3/s^2). They are unrelated.

The more there are atoms the more energy is required to push something to orbit.

The relevant variable is NOT the number of atoms. It is the total mass. Since different atoms can have different masses, the two are very different. For example, a mass of 1 kg of carbon has more than twice as many atoms as 1 kg of silicon. The relevant variable is the mass, not the number of atoms.

Lets say that we have blocks of 1.0 billion and 10.0 billion atoms of some same substance. For each atom you need X amount of energy lift it to a specific orbit. From this you directly know that the bigger block requires 10 times the energy to reach the same orbit as the smaller block.
It's as simple as that.

Which is nothing new: it has part of Newtonian physics for the last 350 years. Now, what happens when there are different substances?

The energy state represents the energy state of a single atom. In a mass at rest all atoms will balance into a same energy state.

No, they will not. And no, energy state (m^3/s^2) has nothing to do with energy (kg.m/s^2).

You again misunderstand. Of course it is classical energy. This classical energy is then consumed evenly by all the atoms while changing their energy state.

No, energy is conserved. it is not 'consumed'. And your energy state has nothing to do with energy. THAT is why you should use a different word for your quantity.

Your problem is that you use this term called "kilogram" which is only a NAME for a lump used for relative measurements.

No, it is the name for the *mass* of that lump. We know how to compare masses and that lump gives us the standard that we compare to. That's it. When we determine the value of G, we can determine the masses of astronomical objects like the Earth and the Sun. Before Cavendish, only the ratios of those masses were known, but not the ratio between any of those masses and the standard lump.

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
I was not referring to volume, but to the size of mass which here is 1.0 kilograms.

Size means distance, area, or volume. You are wanting the *amount* of mass?

So I'll ask you again: What is your view why the size of the lump is what it is?

Do you want a reason why that lump of platinum has the *density* it does? There are good reasons for the crystal structure based on the nature of the atoms and the ways they attract each other. But that is irrelevant to the notion of mass.

Why isn't it for example a lump that has 5.123 times that potential energy it now has when left on a table?

Huh? We take a particular block and say the mass of that block is 1 kg. All other masses are measured in terms of that kilogram. So you are asking why it isn't 5.123 kilograms? Because we *defined* it to be 1 kg. Or are you asking why the force of gravity isn't 5.123 times larger? In that case, because the mass of the earth (and the distance from the center) is what they are.

Be clear about what you are asking here.

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
So you agree with me that the reason for that 1 kilogram relative lump came from commerce and not science.
As it stands now one kilogram is the exact same measure as 1/6x10^24 Earths, so both lumps are usable.

but we did not know the ration between the masses of the earth and that lump until Cavendish's experiment.

You are right. Either *could* be used for our definition of the unit of mass. For astronomical work, the ratios of the masses of the planets and the sun were known before the ratio between any of them and any lump we could directly measure. What Cavendish did was show what the ratio of the masses is between the earth and that 1 kg lump. That's all.

15th Dalai Lama wrote:

Potential energy? Why didn't you just say mass like a person that's not insane?

I wanted to clearly indicate that we are dealing with potential energy here.

You didn't answer the question. Here it is again:

What is your view why the size of the lump is what it is? Why isn't it for example a lump that has 5.123 times that potential energy it now has when left on a table?

If you are totally unable to answer this question you can indicate that inability by just ignoring the question and leaving it unanswered.

15th Dalai Lama wrote:

You are insane. Using a liter of water I could construct a single beam scale and find the weight of a bicycle, for example, to fairly high accuracy in about an hour. Using your alternative 'lump', you would spend that hour with your thumb in your butt saying the same old stupid stuff.
Being the highly scientific type that I am, however, I'd just use the bathroom scale.

So you would essentially use your constructed single beam scale to find the weight of a bicycle relative to 1/6x10^24 Earths. We have conversion rates for multiple different relative measures as not all are accustomed to using the "standard kilogram".

Is it wrong in your view to use some other lump than the "standard kilogram" as a relative measure?:)

polymath257 wrote:

Technically, there is a conversion between potential and kinetic energy. There is no transfer of energy between the two objects.

Well. There is a force affecting the mass and its velocity. The force causes change in the velocity. Is the force doing work or not in your view?

polymath257 wrote:

How, exactly, does it do that? And why does such a representation have the units m^3/s^2?

The electrons of an atom are in constant acceleration because of their rotational movement in orbit around the nucleus. This is represented as volumetric acceleration as it occurs in all three spatial axes.

polymath257 wrote:

What, eaxctly, does this mean?

It means the rate of the quantum level events. Atomic clocks tick faster on GPS satellites because all the electrons of the atoms in the GPS satellites have a higher energy state i.e. higher volumetric acceleration of all electrons.

polymath257 wrote:

There you go confusing energy (with dimensions kg.m/s^2) with your energy state (m^3/s^2). They are unrelated.

You are the one confusing the concepts. The energy state of all orbiters of Earth are the same within the new model. Now are their energies the same? Do you understand that these are two difference concepts?

polymath257 wrote:

The relevant variable is NOT the number of atoms. It is the total mass. Since different atoms can have different masses, the two are very different. For example, a mass of 1 kg of carbon has more than twice as many atoms as 1 kg of silicon. The relevant variable is the mass, not the number of atoms.

You are correct there in the sense that atom is not the correct term because atoms have different amounts of electrons.

The correct expression would be the amount of electrons within the new model.

polymath257 wrote:

Which is nothing new: it has part of Newtonian physics for the last 350 years. Now, what happens when there are different substances?

When talking about amount of electrons different substances do not matter.

polymath257 wrote:

No, they will not. And no, energy state (m^3/s^2) has nothing to do with energy (kg.m/s^2).

Stop insisting. In the new model a higher energy state means that there is more kinetic energy as rotations of electrons. The electrons will rotate faster i.e. higher volumetric acceleration.

Rotation rate of the quanta defines the energy state.

polymath257 wrote:

No, energy is conserved. it is not 'consumed'. And your energy state has nothing to do with energy. THAT is why you should use a different word for your quantity.

It is consumed by the electrons in the sense that they hold on to it until some point. The may then release it later on. The energy is conserved of course.

Similarly as you consume food electrons can consume energy. Even you will eventually give back all that you have consumed. You have only borrowed that which you have consumed.

polymath257 wrote:

No, it is the name for the *mass* of that lump. We know how to compare masses and that lump gives us the standard that we compare to. That's it.

Good that you finally accept that it is only an arbitrarily chosen lump which is named and then used for relative measurements.

polymath257 wrote:

When we determine the value of G, we can determine the masses of astronomical objects like the Earth and the Sun. Before Cavendish, only the ratios of those masses were known, but not the ratio between any of those masses and the standard lump.

The masses of astronomical objects are not known. They are all calculated within the model and are there purely hypothetical and as falsifiable as the model. All the calculated values for masses could be falsified at any given time in the future.

polymath257 wrote:

Size means distance, area, or volume. You are wanting the *amount* of mass?

Sure.

polymath257 wrote:

Do you want a reason why that lump of platinum has the *density* it does?

No.

polymath257 wrote:

Huh? We take a particular block and say the mass of that block is 1 kg. All other masses are measured in terms of that kilogram. So you are asking why it isn't 5.123 kilograms? Because we *defined* it to be 1 kg. Or are you asking why the force of gravity isn't 5.123 times larger? In that case, because the mass of the earth (and the distance from the center) is what they are.
Be clear about what you are asking here.

The point was simply that the amount which is NAMED 1.0 kilogram was arbitrarily chosen. There is no real reason for why one kilogram is an amount of mass inflicting the exact amount of force on the scale.

polymath257 wrote:

but we did not know the ration between the masses of the earth and that lump until Cavendish's experiment.
You are right. Either *could* be used for our definition of the unit of mass. For astronomical work, the ratios of the masses of the planets and the sun were known before the ratio between any of them and any lump we could directly measure. What Cavendish did was show what the ratio of the masses is between the earth and that 1 kg lump. That's all.

Cavendish's experiment if falsifiable, so the ratio is not known but only hypothesized.

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
Well. There is a force affecting the mass and its velocity. The force causes change in the velocity. Is the force doing work or not in your view?

No. if the force is perpendicular to the velocity, no work is done.

The electrons of an atom are in constant acceleration because of their rotational movement in orbit around the nucleus. This is represented as volumetric acceleration as it occurs in all three spatial axes.

Exactly *how* is it 'represented'?

It means the rate of the quantum level events. Atomic clocks tick faster on GPS satellites because all the electrons of the atoms in the GPS satellites have a higher energy state i.e. higher volumetric acceleration of all electrons.

Details. How much higher is the volac? Why? How is it measured?

You are the one confusing the concepts. The energy state of all orbiters of Earth are the same within the new model. Now are their energies the same? Do you understand that these are two difference concepts?

That is, in fact, what i have been saying. Ther eis no connection between energy and 'energy state', which 1) makes it a bad name, and 2) you have consistently confused.

You are correct there in the sense that atom is not the correct term because atoms have different amounts of electrons.
The correct expression would be the amount of electrons within the new model.

That still fails. The number of electrons and proteons are the same, but the mass is the sum of the proton, neutron, and electron masses. The electrons have very small masses compared to the protons and neutrons. The number of protons and neutrons is typically NOT the same, so the mass does NOT correspond to the number of electrons.

When talking about amount of electrons different substances do not matter.

but there *would* be a problem with different isotopes, such as C-12 and C-14. They have the same number of electrons but different masses. The acceleration is determined by the mass.

Stop insisting. In the new model a higher energy state means that there is more kinetic energy as rotations of electrons.

Why is that? you have given no connection between the two other than your (badly chosen) name.

The electrons will rotate faster i.e. higher volumetric acceleration.
Rotation rate of the quanta defines the energy state.

No, again, it clearly does not. The rate of rotation is a frequency with dimensions 1/s, not m^3/s^2. Again, there is no connection.

It is consumed by the electrons in the sense that they hold on to it until some point. The may then release it later on. The energy is conserved of course.

Good that you finally accept that it is only an arbitrarily chosen lump which is named and then used for relative measurements.

yes, so? ALL physical quantities are relative in this trivial sense.

The masses of astronomical objects are not known. They are all calculated within the model and are there purely hypothetical and as falsifiable as the model. All the calculated values for masses could be falsified at any given time in the future.

Sure, but in fact they are not. That is what it means to be known.

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
Sure.
<quoted text>
No.
<quoted text>
The point was simply that the amount which is NAMED 1.0 kilogram was arbitrarily chosen. There is no real reason for why one kilogram is an amount of mass inflicting the exact amount of force on the scale.

Other than the mass of the earth, that is. Yes, the force is determined by the mass of the lump and the mass of the earth and the distances between their centers. Whether you consider that to be a 'real' reason or not, it is, in fact, the case. The same mass on Jupiter would tilt scales a different amount.

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
Cavendish's experiment if falsifiable, so the ratio is not known but only hypothesized.

Once again, you show your ignorance of what it means to be 'falsifiable'. The Cavendish experiment gave a measurement of the amount of force between two known masses. This allowed the determination of the constant of proportionality, G, in Newton's law of gravity. This, in turn, allowed the determination of the masses of astronomical objects. Falsifiability of the model is irrelevant for all of this.

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
So you would essentially use your constructed single beam scale to find the weight of a bicycle relative to 1/6x10^24 Earths. We have conversion rates for multiple different relative measures as not all are accustomed to using the "standard kilogram".
Is it wrong in your view to use some other lump than the "standard kilogram" as a relative measure?:)

No. I would weight the bicycle relative to one kilogram of water. This method would work just as well on the Moon or Mars.

Of course I'd prefer to use something less sloshy than water for my reference standard but I can't think of any known mass standards laying around the house except nickels and I've only got three.

Tremendously more intelligent people than you have already figured this stuff out. You are simply spinning your wheels.

On rover curiosity, today's scientists claim that mars gravity is only 1/6th of earths, so who is right, today's scientists that must know mars gravity to land the 2000 pound rover curiosity from a hovering craft, or newton and Einstein, that claim mars has a gravity of 38%?

polymath257 wrote:

No. if the force is perpendicular to the velocity, no work is done.

The the case of elliptic orbit the force is only perpendicular at two specific locations along the orbit. Those locations are at the perihelion and aphelion. Considering that very close to 100 %(but not full 100 %) of an elliptic orbit the orbiter's *speed' and its direction is constantly changing, is there gravitational force doing work in your view?

If you think the force is doing work, where does the energy for this work come from?

polymath257 wrote:

Exactly *how* is it 'represented'?

I've already told you. It is the kinetic energy stored in the electrons. The higher the potential energy state the faster the electrons will rotate. Essentially potential energy is also kinetic energy stored inside the mass as rotating electrons.

polymath257 wrote:

Details. How much higher is the volac? Why? How is it measured?

I actually like the term "volac". It sounds Vulcan :)

Relative volac is measured by measuring the difference between rates of atomic clocks. It has been observed that volac on GPS satellites is enough higher to cause the clocks tick 38640 ns faster than the clocks on Earth.

polymath257 wrote:

That is, in fact, what i have been saying. Ther eis no connection between energy and 'energy state', which 1) makes it a bad name, and 2) you have consistently confused.

There is a connection. Changing from one energy state to another requires energy. Relative to Earth the ZERO energy state is everything that is just resting on Earth. When you push something to orbit you change the energy state and you need to spend energy to do that. You can push a tennis ball to some orbit and you can push a satellite to the same orbit. Once they are in the same orbit they will have the same energy state but you have spent different amounts of energy to get them to those states.

polymath257 wrote:

That still fails. The number of electrons and proteons are the same, but the mass is the sum of the proton, neutron, and electron masses. The electrons have very small masses compared to the protons and neutrons. The number of protons and neutrons is typically NOT the same, so the mass does NOT correspond to the number of electrons.

That's within the standard model. The new model does not agree. You can not say that the new model fails because the standard model does not agree. The standard model is falsifiable and these two models contradict each others, which is perfectly fine.

polymath257 wrote:

but there *would* be a problem with different isotopes, such as C-12 and C-14. They have the same number of electrons but different masses. The acceleration is determined by the mass.

Still that's only the standard model. You don't actually have any relation between the masses in the quantum scale and the gravitational force in your model. So it makes no sense for you to talk about particle masses and gravity together.

polymath257 wrote:

Why is that? you have given no connection between the two other than your (badly chosen) name.

I have. You just don't seem to want to understand what I am saying to you.

polymath257 wrote:

No, again, it clearly does not. The rate of rotation is a frequency with dimensions 1/s, not m^3/s^2. Again, there is no connection.

Wrong. There is acceleration relative to all spatial axes and the direction of a single particle changes constantly. The acceleration forms a volumetric shape (i.e. a cloud) not a disk like shape along just one axis.

polymath257 wrote:

Sure, but in fact they are not. That is what it means to be known.

What?:) Are you claiming that you are absolutely 100 % certain that the calculations are perfectly correct and there can be no systematic errors anywhere in the Cavendish experiment & calculations?

Yea, all the bankers and everyone in the stock market are religious. Just throw anything at the wall and see if it sticks. The power of gov is growing all the time, while that of religion is waining, except for Muslims. However, Muslims borrow money with no interest attached.

That gives them a much bigger voting block.

polymath257 wrote:

Other than the mass of the earth, that is. Yes, the force is determined by the mass of the lump and the mass of the earth and the distances between their centers. Whether you consider that to be a 'real' reason or not, it is, in fact, the case.

I meant a reason for that particular lump becoming common. There have probably been many competing lumps in the early days :)

polymath257 wrote:

The same mass on Jupiter would tilt scales a different amount.

Yes, exactly. I tried to explain this to Chimney1 while making a point about mass being relative to the gravity field it is in. The mass itself of course is just the same but the force is very different. We are only able to measure mass via the force that it inflicts while measuring. Measuring the relative force with the actual relative lump will make the weighing easier when traveling to other planets ;)

polymath257 wrote:

Once again, you show your ignorance of what it means to be 'falsifiable'. The Cavendish experiment gave a measurement of the amount of force between two known masses. This allowed the determination of the constant of proportionality, G, in Newton's law of gravity. This, in turn, allowed the determination of the masses of astronomical objects. Falsifiability of the model is irrelevant for all of this.

Are you 100 % certain that there can't be something wrong with Cavendish's experiment that no one just haven't realized yet?

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
The the case of elliptic orbit the force is only perpendicular at two specific locations along the orbit. Those locations are at the perihelion and aphelion. Considering that very close to 100 %(but not full 100 %) of an elliptic orbit the orbiter's *speed' and its direction is constantly changing, is there gravitational force doing work in your view?
If you think the force is doing work, where does the energy for this work come from?

yes, it does work. it transforms the potential energy into kinetic energy.

I've already told you. It is the kinetic energy stored in the electrons.

In that case, it doesn't have dimensions m^3/s^2.

The higher the potential energy state the faster the electrons will rotate. Essentially potential energy is also kinetic energy stored inside the mass as rotating electrons.

No potential energy is energy of *position*. The kinetic energy of the electrons doesn't change. This is known because there is no change in the spectrum of the atoms.

I actually like the term "volac". It sounds Vulcan :)
Relative volac is measured by measuring the difference between rates of atomic clocks. It has been observed that volac on GPS satellites is enough higher to cause the clocks tick 38640 ns faster than the clocks on Earth.

OK, so there is a difference in rates of atomic clocks. So are you proposing that the ratio of the volacs is the same as the ratio of the times?

There is a connection. Changing from one energy state to another requires energy. Relative to Earth the ZERO energy state is everything that is just resting on Earth. When you push something to orbit you change the energy state and you need to spend energy to do that. You can push a tennis ball to some orbit and you can push a satellite to the same orbit. Once they are in the same orbit they will have the same energy state but you have spent different amounts of energy to get them to those states.

Why are they the same energy state? There is a different amount of energy required simply because the force is different over a similar distance. That is work, which is energy. NOT volac.

What?:) Are you claiming that you are absolutely 100 % certain that the calculations are perfectly correct and there can be no systematic errors anywhere in the Cavendish experiment & calculations?

I am saying that whatever errors there are are very small. Given the number of times this has been repeated over the last 200 years, I can say there are no systematic errors affecting the ultimate result, yes. For example, the number are certainly accurate to within, say, 1%(actually, much more accurate, but for the sake of argument I give this).

thewordofme wrote:

<quoted text>
I know there is no god or gods because NO ONE on earth can Prove there IS one. There is absolutely no physical evidence for a god and there NEVER has been.
Because all of the old stories in the Old Testament can be proven wrong, because prayers are NEVER answered...God has NEVER caused and amputee to regrow a lost limb. To hear Christians talk about it you would think that prayers are answered every day for millions of people, but when you investigate the stories they ALL, without exception, fall apart. Statistically, prayers fall in perfect alignment with blind chance...and never a regrown limb in all of recorded history.
From what we know about the Bible nowadays it makes no sense to consider it a 'Holy' document; it is purely a man-made hoax and is full of man-made myths.
Think about this and follow the logical consequences...There was never an Adam and Eve as described in the Bible. Never a time in human history when there was only 2 procreating Homo-sapiens. Never a time when there was only 8 procreating humans (flood myth).
We know there was never a Exodus of a million+ Hebrews out of Egypt. This is a foundational story of the Jews and their god, and it is provably a myth.
There's more, bit I'm tired of writing today.

25Aug12.....

.....All BobLoblah asked you to do was prove that there is No GOD....

......and you can't.

Ps:....You are fulla schidt to the eyeballs.

Forever and Ever
BobLoblah